[2004] KEHC 1738 (KLR)
The court found that since Justice Wambilyangah, who had presided over the trial and heard all the evidence, had retired before summing up to the assessors and could not be recalled, the trial was incomplete and could not lawfully proceed to judgment. The proceedings before him were therefore a mistrial. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1738 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: George Ombati Orenge; Defendant: Machuki Kefa Nyarusa; Defendant: Joshua Ombiro Maigo; Defendant: Harun Ombiro Siboti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 63 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Mistrial and Discharge After Judge's Retirement
- Outcome
- Trial declared a mistrial; accused persons discharged; state at liberty to take further action.
- Legal Topics
- Mistrial, Judge Retirement, Discharge of Accused, Criminal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
George Ombati Orenge
Defendant
Machuki Kefa Nyarusa
Defendant
Joshua Ombiro Maigo
Defendant
Harun Ombiro Siboti
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Mistrial and Discharge After Judge's Retirement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial before Justice Wambilyangah should be declared a mistrial due to his retirement before conclusion of the case.
- 2 Whether the accused persons should be discharged as a result of the mistrial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since Justice Wambilyangah, who had presided over the trial and heard all the evidence, had retired before summing up to the assessors and could not be recalled, the trial was incomplete and could not lawfully proceed to judgment. The proceedings before him were therefore a mistrial. The court further held that the application for mistrial was properly before it, notwithstanding the earlier order to start the case afresh. Consequently, the court declared the trial a mistrial and discharged the accused persons, while leaving the state at liberty to take any further action it deemed necessary.
Court Disposition
Trial declared a mistrial; accused persons discharged; state at liberty to take further action.
Orders
- The trial of the accused persons before Justice Wambilyangah is declared a mistrial.
- The accused persons are hereby discharged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CRIMINAL CASE NO.63 OF 2002
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………… PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
1. GEORGE OMBATI ORENGE )
2. MACHUKI KEFA NYARUSA )
3. JOSHUA OMBIRO MAIGO ) ………… ACCUSED.
4 . HARUN OMBIRO SIBOTI )
RULING
Counsel for the applicant has applied to court to declare the trial of the Accused Persons before Justice Wambilyangah a mistrial and to discharge the accused persons.
Accused first appeared in Court on 17/10/2002 when they pleaded not guilty to offence of murder. Trial started on 20/1/2003 before Justice Wambilyangah. A total of 12 witnesses testified and the prosecution closed its case. Accused were called to their defence which they did on 15th September 2003. Counsels gave their submission and suit fixed for summing up to the assessors on 12th November 2003. However by that time Justice Wambilyangah had left service. The case came up before me on 3/2/04 when court ordered the case to start a fresh. Mr. Kaburi for the accused however submitted that the case having progressed to the stage of summing up and Justice Wambilyangah having left service the court should declare the trial a mistrial and discharge the accused.
The learned state counsel objected stating that since the court have already ordered the case to start a fresh the application is coming late.
I have ordered the submissions. An application for mistrial can be brought and entertained even if the court had ordered for the case to start a fresh. Counsel was therefore in order to bring the application.
It is not in dispute that the case had been heard and almost finalized by Justice Wambilyangah. He has since retired and cannot therefore be recalled to finalise the case.The trial before him is therefore a mistrial. This case is similar to the authority cited to me of STANLEY NJOROGE MUNENE & OTHERS VS. R. HCCR.C.NO.18 OF 2000 where my brother Justice Osiemo declare a trial before Justice Etyang a mistrial.
In the circumstances I declare the trial of the accused persons before Justice Wambilyangah a mistrial. I hereby discharge the accused person. The state however is at liberty to take any further necessary action it deems fit.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE.
8/7/04
Signed dated and delivered on 8th July 2004.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE.